Hello everybody. I'm just wondering if anybody might have access to a clip of an early statement made by law enforcement. It's not discussed much anymore, but very early into the initial discovery of the murders someone in LE had made a statement to the effect of, "make sure to be aware of who your children are talking to online." (paraphrased) It has proven to be very difficult to find any reference to this early quote - but nevertheless, many of us on websleuths.com were discussing it fervently and speculating on the obvious implications inherent in this warning issued by LE. Does anyone happen to know where a clip of this might be found, after all these years? I'm not having any luck!

Weren’t both girls’ underpants missing from the crime scene/never found or recovered? Were there any other items of clothing that were missing/never found or recovered? What’s everyone’s theories on that? Do you think RA took them and then like disposed of them later or kept them some place and LE just didn’t find them during their search or what?

Hi friends! Quick question: did it come out during the trial where they believe the murders physically happened? I heard that Libby was dragged but didn't know if that was before or after her death?

Wondering for timeline purposes!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/girls-delphi-trail-day-murders-speak-man-waved/story%3fid=115027828

I hesitate to even ask this question because it might be interpreted as spreading misinformation, but I have come across people disseminating some very confusing information and I'm hoping to get some help understanding its context.

Certain pro-Allen accounts (not going to link them due to Reddit rules) have begun sharing around screenshots of "leaked texts" and social media posts by a person claiming to have been in the search party looking for Abby and Libby. The account making these posts is called "Eric Williams", and the posts make a number of bombastic claims. Some of the biggest ones are:

• The area around the crime scene had "piles of animal bones" laying around, multiple deer heads hanging from trees, and ATV tracks leading to a "farm house".

• The girls stumbled on a meth lab run by crooked cops and were killed to protect that operation.

• Police have DNA of the killer and know who he is but "refuse to charge him" because they don't want to ruin his family's name.

Reasons I'm skeptical of these claims:

• We know a lot of the testimony about the crime scene from trial and no one mentioned "deer heads", "piles of animal bones", or ATV tracks like the screenshots claimed were present.

• No one named Eric Williams (or any similar name, as far as I can tell) testified at trial. It seems like the defense would have been eager to call this guy to the stand if there was any truth to his claims, but they didn't.

• Some of the claims seem hard to reconcile with each other...they claim that the animal bones were from someone "practicing" to kill humans, but the girls were killed in the heat of the moment when they stumbled on a meth lab? So which one was it?

Frankly, the whole thing sounds more like a TV show script than real life.

So my question is, who is this "Eric Williams" account? He has the same last name as Abby and he claims to have been part of the search party, so is he a relative of the girls? I did a quick search through this subreddit and didn't find any mentions of "Eric Williams", so is he actually a known person in the relation to the Delphi case? Did anyone with that name participate in the search?

What would happen if a juror came out publicly and said had they know all the evidence the defence wanted to present / they would have voted differently…? Would that be a big deal or not? Because if a juror feel like they would have had doubts they should come out and say.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox59.com/news/delphi-murders-victim-honored-by-her-friends-at-holiday-charity-event/amp/

Curious if anyone else suspects Allen to admit guilt and apologize during his sentencing hearing?

“Acceptance of Responsibility” happens routinely at sentencing and I think he might; depending on how his conversations with wife/mom have gone.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2024/11/12/delphi-murders-trial-richard-allen-verdict-evidence-motive/76220314007/

RA seems like the logical pick—kind of like what the Brown family did with O.J. Simpson in civil court after his criminal trial—but I’m wondering if they could sue LE because their repeated gross negligence in following up on collected testimony/evidence which resulted in the years-long delay of bringing RA to trial and causing years of unnecessary pain and suffering to the families?

I was listening to one of the last couple of episodes on MS about Delphi after the conviction. And something that Aine said has stuck with me. Why do people keep making martyrs out of violent men?! She was talking about Richard Allen who has nearly been sanctified by those believing he's innocent despite all the evidence against him for murdering two CHILDREN! But it doesn't end with him. We've made a martyr out of Adnan Syed, who strangled his girlfriend to death and the overwhelming amount of circumstantial and direct evidence proved that. We've made a martyr out of Scott f-ing Peterson! Who admitted to being in the area where his wife and son's bodies were found! It's just ridiculous and I don't understand it. I know innocent people get convicted and it's horrible. I also know that our criminal justice system is overly punitive and inequitable. But those things do not make these incredibly violent murderous men innocent of the crimes for which they've been accused and rightly convicted. I don't know what's going on, and I don't know the solution, but it's disturbing and I'm grateful to Aine Cain for articulating it so succinctly.

Y'all please don't jump on me here. I've half-asses followed this thing since the girls went missing, as I live in the state, but I'm super busy lately and haven't kept up. Would someone please fill me in on the confessions? What did he say that no one could've know? What did he say about the murders? I've been looking at recent posts but it's too much volume to dig through. Thanks in advance

Great recap of the case and the evidence put forward that resulted in 12 jurors finding Richard Allen guilty of murdering Libby and Abby.

https://youtu.be/LdhN4oVUJ0o?si=UZOJK3F5lLUcVOzd

The Baneheia murders (Norwegian: Baneheia-drapene) was a double rape and murder, and a miscarriage of justice, that occurred in Norway on 19 May 2000. The victims were 10 and 8 years old.

As I was reading the wiki on the murders, I found a few details interesting:

• the police discovered bloodied clothes hidden under a layer of mosses
• The bodies of the two little girls were found hidden under pine branches
• They had been sexually assaulted, tied-up, strangled and stabbed to death
• the girls were wearing each other's clothes when they were found
• ...he killed (victim 1) by stabbing her three times, once in the abdomen/chest and two times in the neck, severing her right carotid artery.
• ...proceeded to stab (victim 2) once in the neck, also severing her carotid artery
• cell phone evidence that placed one of the suspect in a different location at the time of murders came in just at the end of the trial and was dismissed

The police had DNA evidence but arrested two suspects. The guy whose DNA they found pinned all responsibility on his friend for which there was no evidence that he was at the scene.

After two decades in prison, the second suspect was released with apologies from Norwegian police.

Following the verdict (in 2001), Kristiansen and his supporters have raised several issues concerning the evidence for the verdict. The main issues are related to the interrogating techniques performed on Andersen, the location of Kristiansen's cell phone during the time of the murders, Kristiansen's alibi as per witnesses, whether there were two perpetrators or one, and the validity of the DNA evidence.

It should be noted, that the guy who was found innocent had admitted to voyeurism and had molested a girl under the age of 10 (when he was 15 - 17 years old), yet he was still unconnected to the murder. He also had a low IQ of 84.

There are some interesting parallels with the Delphi case. It also shows that it is possible for a single perpetrator to subdue and kill two girls in a relatively populated area without being seen. Had the killer not sexually assaulted the victims (as was the case in Delphi), there would have been no evidence linking him to the crime.

I just read over a timeline of Feb 13. It looks like Libby's phone recorded a drop in a 20' elevation at 2:31-2:32. At 3:56 pm, the person who saw the muddy and bloody man walking.

I don't know how long he would have been walking to get from the crime scene to where he was seen with mud and blood on his clothes, but let's say 1/2 hour just to get the discussion going. That means he would have been with the girls for about an hour --from 2:30-3:30.

I almost hate to ask this but I have been curious . . . what was he doing this whole time?

I know it took the girls a bit to die. He drug the bodies to their final resting place, found sticks to put on them. Would that possibly take an hour? If not, was he just standing there?

I guess I am asking for theories since I don't think anyone actually knows . . .

When else would a crime fit this penalty?

The time of death is from an estimated time, after the snapchat to when they were found. Take everything they have said about RA, pretend there is no suspect at this point. How would one develop a timeline for anything if the time of death is almost the span of a whole day? It seems like the story evolves based on RA says. (Please don’t start with well he said this and he said that)

Also, are the ‘confessions Dr. Wala talked about during her testimony, the best of thee BEST confessions out of all 60 sum? Because I’m gonna need to hear about the rest if ‘I think I did it’ and ‘I’ll tell them whatever they want me to say’ are considered creme of the crop. Doesn’t quality jump over quantity at some point? I keep hearing people say that 60 is the most they have ever heard of…shouldn’t that be a 🚩 and are we subtracting all the denials and 60 is the net amount or do those no I didn’ts just get tossed out?

Help me understand, without hitting me with made up stuff!

Just want to apologize in advance if this has been discussed elsewhere, or I am the only person on Earth who does not know the answer. Anyway . . . does anyone recall that weird back-and-forth that showed up on some smalltown website (I think) where a couple of local people were talking about that first released still of RA and saying "Well everyone knows that's Richard on the bridge." And then a couple of people started jumping in and saying "Richard" is just slang for "unknown male," and other people were replying "Really? Since when does "Richard" mean that?" Sorry, for how convoluted this sounds, but does anyone remember this, or know if anything came of it? (This did happen, I promise I'm not insane.)

Has anyone read/listened/watched any professionals (criminologists/law enforcement officers/psychologists) opining on RA likely having committed prior offenses or a having criminal history?

I cannot move away from the thought that someone does not get to the age of 45+ and suddenly starts acting on their criminal impulses.

I hope something like this comes out during the sentencing phase.

For what it’s worth, I believe that Richard Allen is the perpetrator and that he’s currently where he should be. However, as I’ve been reviewing the available information on the trial, I find myself puzzled by the lack of clarity regarding his motive.

Is there any evidence that points to whether this act was premeditated or a spontaneous decision? Did Allen go to the trail that day with the intent to harm someone, or did events unfold differently than we might expect?

From what I’ve read, he appeared to be an ordinary, unremarkable individual with no prior criminal record. Yet, if his alleged jail confessions are accurate, he admitted to having previously molested three individuals. This makes me wonder what could have driven him to commit such a horrific act. Was there a specific trigger, perhaps a significant stressor or deeper psychological issue? To be clear, understanding his mental state or circumstances does not justify his actions in any way.

As someone who has followed true crime for years, I know that many murders defy logical reasoning and are often entirely senseless. This may be true in this case as well, but I’m curious if anyone has insights or theories.

Justice for Abby and Libby ❤️

Disclaimer: I have no opinion on RA's innocence or guilt as nothing has convinced me either way.

but how can the judiciary system give him guilty verdict even if the following was presented in the court. I have very rarely seen in such circumstances such verdicts are given. mostly no verdict is given or else it could be considered mistrial in other countries that I know. I understand the girls need justice but is this a normal way in the US to give verdicts or there are laws that allow this?

- the lab technician's dna or fingerprint was initially mistaken as unidentified male. the LE in court said it Wass cross contamination.

-the confessions were inside a solitary confinement. how is this okay? wouldn't that classify as confession under influence?

-the witnesses did not directly identify the RA as who they witnessed.

-lack of direct evidence linking RA to the crime scene other than what's been said by himself

- all the mistakes that LE did in the initial phase of the investigation. eg wrong suspect photos, misfiled tips, the unknown snapchat photo, no search for any other dna or footprints.

I was wondering if anyone else feels that this would explain a lot:

I think both of them were undressed, and Abby lost some of her clothes when they crossed the creek.
I think he injured Libby first, but not yet lethal. She was grabbing her wound while he attacked Abby.
I think he allowed Abby to dress because her body looked much younger than Libby's. She had lost her clothes on the creek, that’s why she was wearing Libby’s. He said he thought they were older and only realized how young they were when they were naked.
Abby didn’t touch her wound because she was lying on her stomach- the same way suspects are held down when police arrest them. He was able to hold her hand and cut her neck. This also explains why blood was running from her neck towards her nose.
After that, he attacked Libby again. Just as he said, “he made sure they were dead”. Libby was injured but hand enough time to put her hands on her neck and to walk a few steps.

Can anyone suggest a podcast that thoroughly covers the trial that is not 1000 episodes. All I am coming across on my app is the one podcast that post almost daily and older pods about the case.

I followed the case off and on over the years. Would anyone please catch me up on why this case took so long? Why was it a cold case for so many years? Despite somewhat following it, I don't understand why there was such a long delay in identifying Richard Allen. I remember a whole bunch of hype around Keegan Kline. Was the investigation incompetent? Was Richard Allen some sort of criminal mastermind? Maybe I missed something over the years, but this did seem like a cold case for a long time and then Richard Allen was identified and arrested seemingly out of nowhere. Thanks in advance.

Forgive me if this has been talked about. I did try to search this sub.

After seeing multiple pictures and videos - at what point did the girls see BG/RA? Wasn’t it 2:13 that the video started? Wondering if the girls saw or realized BG/RA was coming towards them from the time he stepped on the bridge or were distracted taking pictures and talking until it was too late.

This space is for discussion that doesn't warrant a separate post. This includes personal opinions, quick questions, and thoughts about the crime, the trial, the verdict, and what happens next.

Be Respectful to Others. Debate the thought, not the person. Insults, flippant remarks, snark, and hostile replies may earn you a ban.

Thank you!